Roman Concrete Vs Concrete

The development improvement of concrete and the use of the architectural arch contributed greatly to the engineering and design achievements of the ancient Romans. The use of these two technologies allowed the Romans to build structures that were taller, stronger and more durable than any that had come before them (Yegul). The basic use of mortar was not invented or pioneered by the Romans, but while concrete is similar to mortar in its makeup, it is a different material. Roman concrete relied on a specific ingredient for much of its success. Pozzolona is a volcanic ash that was specific to central Italy and roman builders discovered that it made an exceptional binding agent, much better than they lime or gypsum that was commonly in use at the time (Yegul). When pozzolona was used in the formula, the resulting material was much harder and more durable than the alternatives. With this new, more effective building material, Roman architects were able to build more types of structures easier. When compared with stacked stone or brick construction with void areas filled with mortar or aggregate, concrete provided many measurable benefits. More advanced harbor …show more content…
The design of an arch uses something called compressive stress to take some of the downward pressure of a structure above and redirect it to to the sides. This redirection is what gives an arch its strength (Study.com). Often heavy walls can be seen at either end of an arch, there to help hold that redirected pressure. The construction of the aqueducts takes advantage of arches by using them side by side, over hundreds of miles sometimes to support the elevated waterways (Alchin). The Colosseum in Rome utilizes these connected arches (called an “arcade” when arranged in this fashion) to support the structure as it rises to its full